Skip to main content
Glama

Search functions by what they do

search_by_intent
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search every function in this project by what it does, including sibling repos you do not have checked out. Pass a plain-English concept ('verify a webhook signature'); matches need no keyword overlap. Use it before writing any helper, parser, validator or domain function, even when you are sure it is new — grep can prove a name is absent but never that the behaviour is. A row whose only tie to the query is a word most functions share is counted in the response rather than ranked. To browse instead, use list_function_intents. For a set of functions you are about to write or have just written, and for a whole-project reuse audit, use find_similar.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoYour repo as owner/repo (git remote) or just the repo name. Resolves which Carrick project to query.
queryYesPlain-English description of what the function should do (e.g. 'verify webhook HMAC signature', 'normalize email addresses')
top_kNoHow many top matches to return (default 8). Keep tight — the agent should drill in on a few good matches rather than skim a long list.
offsetNoRank offset into the matches (default 0). Pass the `next_offset` from a previous call to page through.
compactNoReturn locator-only rows (name, path, lines, similarity) instead of full detail. Use for wide enumeration.
projectNoCarrick project slug to query. Omit to auto-resolve via `repo`, or omit both when the workspace has one project.
also_phrased_asNoUp to 2 further wordings of the same concept, such as the mechanism ('sha256 of a JSON body') beside the purpose ('hash a value to a cache key'). Purpose wording and mechanism wording reach different functions, so one call runs both and returns one deduped list, with matched_phrasings on each row naming the wordings that found it. For separate questions, call the tool once per question.
similarity_thresholdNoCosine-similarity floor for inclusion (default 0.3). Raise to filter weak matches; lower to surface more candidates.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so credit goes to what the description adds: no keyword overlap is required, weakly-tied rows are counted rather than ranked, and multiple phrasings are deduped into one list with matched_phrasings. It stops short of describing return volume/ordering in detail, but the behavioral picture is notably richer than the annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and usage come first, then alternatives. Every sentence carries information, though the 'word most functions share' nuance is slightly more detail than an agent needs at selection time.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 8 parameters, no output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs: no keyword-overlap matching, deduping across phrasings, and paging via next_offset (schema-documented). Return row shape is only partially described, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: query is a plain-English concept needing no keyword overlap, which shapes how an agent should phrase it. It also clarifies that repeated questions require separate calls, complementing the schema's also_phrased_as note.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb and resource ('search every function ... by what it does') plus scope ('including sibling repos you do not have checked out'). It is immediately distinguishable from list_function_intents (browse) and find_similar (sets/audit), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('before writing any helper, parser, validator or domain function, even when you are sure it is new') and a memorable when-not rationale ('grep can prove a name is absent but never that the behaviour is'). It also names both alternatives and the conditions that select them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.